Random Conversations

[OTSkyline]

Places like Kitchener and even Kelowna are approving and building taller than Ottawa. It's embarrassing.

City council and residents here are so small-minded and fight everything tooth and nail and have very little will or vision to make this an urban, young, fun Capital.

[Harley613]

11 buildings as tall or taller than Icon planned or going up in Kitchener. Nuts.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

I was at the original planning meeting where this building was presented at 60 stories. From what I remember, there were no major complaints about height from people in attendance including councillors. There were actually people advocating for the height/density. No fighting tooth and nail. I know that idea fits the general narrative around these parts but it didn't happen (unless there were complaints behind the scenes). The bigger issue from the standpoint of the public was 6-7 floors of above ground parking, which is entirely reasonable to me.

Honestly, I find local developers are more to blame for the low heights in Ottawa more than residents or the City. Plenty of towers have or had been approved and never broke ground, OR height was removed even when no significant opposition had been expressed. Think of Claridge Hintonburg, the Gladstone towers, Medical Arts Building, and now this one.

Brigil pushed hard for his tall towers in Hull, but has yet to make any attempt to propose such heights in Ottawa years later, despite his "threat".

With Toronto developers like Dream and M+M pushing the envelop ever so slightly, we might see some progress. I'm confident the arena district (if it gets off the ground) will see significant heights in the 40s and 50s.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Places like Kitchener and even Kelowna are approving and building taller than Ottawa. It's embarrassing.

City council and residents here are so small-minded and fight everything tooth and nail and have very little will or vision to make this an urban, young, fun Capital.

I would like to see something tall built here as much as the next person (on this site), but I'm not sure that I see any link between buildings over 40 storeys and a city being "young and fun".

Yes Kitchener has approved a bunch of really tall buildings, but the quality is pretty poor on several of them and others are pretty clearly going to just be drive-in, drive out islands. They also look quite weird, as there wasn't much over 20 storeys there before, so you have these tall things beside 2-storey houses. I'm not keen on that model for here.

I think that there are all sorts of more important factors that go into a vibrant city, and frankly Kitchener doesn't have a single neighbourhood that matches the vibrancy of the Glebe or Wellington West or Centretown. Nor do I expect any of those tall projects to do much to change that.

[7empest]

It wouldn't be as bad if the 27 story towers we do get were actually of quality.

[OTSkyline]

Originally Posted by phil235

I would like to see something tall built here as much as the next person (on this site), but I'm not sure that I see any link between buildings over 40 storeys and a city being "young and fun".

Yes Kitchener has approved a bunch of really tall buildings, but the quality is pretty poor on several of them and others are pretty clearly going to just be drive-in, drive out islands. They also look quite weird, as there wasn't much over 20 storeys there before, so you have these tall things beside 2-storey houses. I'm not keen on that model for here.

I think that there are all sorts of more important factors that go into a vibrant city, and frankly Kitchener doesn't have a single neighbourhood that matches the vibrancy of the Glebe or Wellington West or Centretown. Nor do I expect any of those tall projects to do much to change that.

It's not a direct link saying tall towers make a city more fun but more of an indirect link that it seems like developers, the mayor, city councillors, planning committee, and a lot of residents resist the urge to dream big, be innovative, propose new ideas, grandeur scale. It seems like we're missing the drive to pursue growth and instead resist change and try to hold on to the past and Ottawa as being quaint & quieter medium-sized city.

Also, my original comment wasn't on this tower particular, but just in general.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

It's not a direct link saying tall towers make a city more fun but more of an indirect link that it seems like developers, the mayor, city councillors, planning committee, and a lot of residents resist the urge to dream big, be innovative, propose new ideas, grandeur scale. It seems like we're missing the drive to pursue growth and instead resist change and try to hold on to the past and Ottawa as being quaint & quieter medium-sized city.

Also, my original comment wasn't on this tower particular, but just in general.

I think this is a good way of summing it up. To elaborate, Ottawa seems like a big city intent on making itself act and feel smaller than it actually is, whereas you see lots of other smaller cities aiming to punch above their weight. It's not any one particular group or entity within a city that decides which of the two directions to take, but rather it's the overall culture that dictates mindset.

Case in point, we are comparing our tallest buildings to Kitchener, and in the airport thread, our airport traffic to that of Halifax and Winnipeg, all cities which are much smaller than Ottawa. Meanwhile, you have similarly sized cities like Calgary and Edmonton, which blow Ottawa out of the water in terms of building height / design quality, and airport traffic.

[Harley613]

Imagine if they had built the Mirabel airport in Vaudreuil instead, as originally planned, in order to serve both cities. Ottawa's airport would probably be struggling to get a million pax per year!

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

It's not a direct link saying tall towers make a city more fun but more of an indirect link that it seems like developers, the mayor, city councillors, planning committee, and a lot of residents resist the urge to dream big, be innovative, propose new ideas, grandeur scale. It seems like we're missing the drive to pursue growth and instead resist change and try to hold on to the past and Ottawa as being quaint & quieter medium-sized city.

Also, my original comment wasn't on this tower particular, but just in general.

The only places where change gets actively resisted is on some of the old streetcar suburbs where the very affluent live and in a few areas in central Ottawa where the NCC has various regulations.

Sites like the one in Kitchener do not get a lot of resistance to change, there are just no developers stepping up.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The only places where change gets actively resisted is on some of the old streetcar suburbs where the very affluent live and in a few areas in central Ottawa where the NCC has various regulations.

Sites like the one in Kitchener do not get a lot of resistance to change, there are just no developers stepping up.

I'd say the outer Greenbelt suburbs are the worse. They flip out about literally anything. Think of the Kennedy Lane recently, or that one modest three story building proposed on a huge lot in Kanata years back.

The streetcar suburbs are taking on a lot. Towers near transit, mid-rises on traditional main streets, 3 storey condos replacing rick SFHs. They do step up once in a while when a developer proposes something far taller than what is currently zoned, but it's not that bad in general when you really think about it; no pitchforks on Scott (other than the one proposal on Roosevelt for some reason), little opposition in Centretown, virtually no opposition near Dow's Lake Station (beyond the campaign against... checks notes... a hospital?)

So yeah, we see opposition on some projects, but it's not all projects. In the outer Greenbelt suburbs, it seems like ALL projects within existing low density areas.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'd say the outer Greenbelt suburbs are the worse. They flip out about literally anything. Think of the Kennedy Lane recently, or that one modest three story building proposed on a huge lot in Kanata years back.

The streetcar suburbs are taking on a lot. Towers near transit, mid-rises on traditional main streets, 3 storey condos replacing rick SFHs. They do step up once in a while when a developer proposes something far taller than what is currently zoned, but it's not that bad in general when you really think about it; no pitchforks on Scott (other than the one proposal on Roosevelt for some reason), little opposition in Centretown, virtually no opposition near Dow's Lake Station (beyond the campaign against... checks notes... a hospital?)

So yeah, we see opposition on some projects, but it's not all projects. In the outer Greenbelt suburbs, it seems like ALL projects within existing low density areas.

Agreed, the idea that NIMBYism is confined to streetcar suburbs is way off. Look at the opposition in Orleans and Kanata to just about anything taller than 3 storeys. There is far more infill development in streetcar suburbs, so maybe it seems like there is more opposition, but I think the suburbs are much worse for ridiculous arguments about preserving the single family “character” of the neighbourhoods.

I understand the points on ambition etc and would agree with that. But as someone from Kitchener, it is absolutely hilarious to hear it held up as some paragon of city building.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'd say the outer Greenbelt suburbs are the worse. They flip out about literally anything. Think of the Kennedy Lane recently, or that one modest three story building proposed on a huge lot in Kanata years back.

The streetcar suburbs are taking on a lot. Towers near transit, mid-rises on traditional main streets, 3 storey condos replacing rick SFHs. They do step up once in a while when a developer proposes something far taller than what is currently zoned, but it's not that bad in general when you really think about it; no pitchforks on Scott (other than the one proposal on Roosevelt for some reason), little opposition in Centretown, virtually no opposition near Dow's Lake Station (beyond the campaign against... checks notes... a hospital?)

So yeah, we see opposition on some projects, but it's not all projects. In the outer Greenbelt suburbs, it seems like ALL projects within existing low density areas.

Are you forgetting that a sitting councilor currently the head of the planning committee tried to vote down a 6 story mid-rise within walking distance of mass transit in his URBAN ward, all because of a 1m setback....

The suburbs are nimbys but they don't claim to be anything else, the Urban wards claim there for density and then fight it even getting there councillor to agree with them.

If were talking about whats worse, I'm going to go with the hypocrites like Jeff leiper, who don't have any kind of democratic backing to there positions.

[YOWetal]

Is this a cut from random threads? It seems disjointed. I mean at some point have the posts in any thread could be considered random or off topic.

[harls]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Is this a cut from random threads? It seems disjointed. I mean at some point have the posts in any thread could be considered random or off topic.

Wasn't me. Maybe J.OT13 is doing some housecleaning

[J.OT13]

Yup, that was me. We had been going on about height comparisons with other cities for two pages in an unrelated thread, so I decided to move it. Since I wasn't able to find one thread that matched the conversation that touched various topics, I put it here.

I know it's impossible to stay on topic. Conversations naturally move towards new ideas. If anyone has a better idea of where this conversation should go, let me know.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Meanwhile, you have similarly sized cities like Calgary and Edmonton, which blow Ottawa out of the water in terms of building height / design quality, and airport traffic.

Edmonton and Calgary have taller downtowns than Ottawa, and also boringer ones.

The height fixation is not-subtly freudian.

[McKellarDweller]

Edmonton's skyline one could make an argument for comparing the boringness to Ottawa (but it is quickly catching up and passing).

Calgary's has an extremely high variation of heights, materials, interesting shapes, and incredible night lighting that keeps expanding with each new tower. It also looks quite different from all directions.

The best parts of the Ottawa skyline were built over 100 years ago and/or are lowrise to midrise institutional buildings with a need for better architectural lighting.

You do you if the grey Ottawa flat top is your jam.

[J.OT13]

For sure, I'd say Edmonton was on the boring side for a while, but the Ice District has brought it up to another level. Calgary has been punching above it's weight since the 80s during a building boom when most other Canadian cities were stagnating.

Ottawa could catch-up over the next 10-20 years depending on how 400 Albert and LeBreton turn out, along with tower clusters near other transit stations.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Edmonton and Calgary have taller downtowns than Ottawa, and also boringer ones.

The height fixation is not-subtly freudian.

Calgary...a boring skyline compared to Ottawa???! Tell me you haven't been to Calgary without telling me you haven't been to Calgary 🤣🤣🤣

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Harley613

Calgary...a boring skyline compared to Ottawa???! Tell me you haven't been to Calgary without telling me you haven't been to Calgary 🤣🤣🤣

Pretty sure that he was saying that the downtown was more boring, not the skyline.